Order ID | 53563633773 |
Type | Essay |
Writer Level | Masters |
Style | APA |
Sources/References | 4 |
Perfect Number of Pages to Order | 5-10 Pages |
The Rate of Innovation Increase Essay
Assignment 2: Designing Value-Based Service
As the rate of innovation increases, companies face expanding product/service lines, shorter product and service lifecycles, and more frequent product/service transitions. All of these can bring tremendous value but also pose enormous challenges and risks.
The article “The Art of Managing New Product Transitions” by Erhun, Gonclave, and Hopman (2007) from the readings for this module includes a matrix titled “Product Drivers and Risk Factors,” which focuses on Intel, a company that manufactures high-tech products (p. 76). Based on your readings and research, address the following issues:
Redesign the product risk factor matrix so that the factors are appropriate for a services firm that delivers traditional tax accounting and audit services. For example, among the supply risks, assume that the company relies on individuals with specific knowledge of the tax law in the jurisdictions where its clients operate, be it state, federal, or foreign.
Now, assume that the firm wants to develop a management consultancy practice. (Alternatively, you may choose to add a legal services line instead.). Create a separate new matrix that summarizes the additional risk factors for this firm launching a management consultancy or legal services line. What additional risk factors are you adding to your matrix?
Explain how the business risks differ between traditional tax and audit services and management consulting services. In your opinion, what are the three biggest risks the firm faces if it diversifies into the new service line?
Recommend whether the firm should organically grow into a consultancy service or acquire a third party to achieve new goals. Justify your recommendations.
Develop a 6–8-slide presentation in PowerPoint format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M2_A2.ppt.
Be sure to include the following in your presentation:
A title slide
An agenda slide
A reference slide
Headings for each section
Speaker notes to support the content in each slide
Home>Reading homework help>Discussion
4CHAPTER Utilitarianism Measuring Consequences
Learning Objectives: � To understand the nature of
teleological ethics and its differences from deontological ethics.
� To recognize the centrality of the principle of utility in the ethics of John Stuart Mill.
� To develop an appreciation of why utilitarianism is sometimes called consequentialism.
� To increase the ability to distinguish objective ways to assess the total happiness produced by an action.
� To appreciate criticisms of utilitarianism as a way to judge ethical action.
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little celestial fire called conscience.
—George Washington (1732–1799)
36
The police in Nashville, Tennessee, paid $120,000over a 3-year period to informants and prostitutes inan effort to impact the illicit sex trade. The police department paid informants “to touch and be touched” to gather evidence of prostitution. A police captain defended the practice by asking the question, “What is the greater good?” He continued, “It may be distasteful
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 36
to some people, but it’s better that we have those places shut down.”1 And, in fact, the city had closed more than thirty-five sex-related businesses, such as massage parlors and escort services. The money paid to informants came from seizures made in other prostitution and gambling cases. It was admitted, however, that a certain amount of sexual touching was usually necessary to show that the money being offered was clearly for the purpose of a sexual act.
Critics of these tactics included the county district attorney, who believed, “It is a little contradictory in letting the informant engage in the very act you’re trying to stamp out.” A city attorney acknowledged that as little contact as possible between informants and prostitutes is desirable, but “I’m reluctant to second-guess what the police have done so far because it’s been so successful.”2
Are such police tactics ethical? Without knowing it, the persons involved in this controversy were using the 200-year-old ethical concept of utility to determine the appropriateness of a police strategy. An understanding of this ethical theory helps resolve the dilemma posed by the police methods being used.
JOHN STUART MILL
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was born 2 years after Emmanuel Kant died. He developed the third of the three most influential ethical theories in history. Whereas Aristotle focused on virtue, and Kant on duty, Mill focused on utility. His approach is teleological because it decides ethical questions based on the good that results from an action. The morality of an act is determined, therefore, by the consequences it brings, compared with other alternative actions. In this view, ethical decisions result in the most good or happiness, whereas unethical decisions do not.
According to the central principle of utility, actions are right in proportion, as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong, as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (pain). That is to say, goodness is determined by the consequences of an action.3 It is the consequences of an action that determine its morality, making utility a teleological approach to ethics. The notion of utility, sometimes called consequentialism, was originated by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and can also be found in the writings of Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794).4 This ethical theory is based on the notion of hedonism, according to which all people are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. Mill’s exposition for determining the greatest happiness principle was a refinement of Bentham’s ideas, which equated the morality of an act with the amount of happiness it produces.
Mill’s notion of utilitarianism emphasized that “pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends.”5 Mill defines pleasure as happiness and the absence of pain. Pain is the absence of pleasure. He responds to the criticism that utilitarianism encourages people to act as hedonists by saying, “The accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable.” In other words, “Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites.”6 Mill recognizes that not all pleasures are equal and that clearly some are more valuable and desirable than others. Of course, those whose capacity for enjoyment is low have the greatest chance of being satisfied, but “it is better to be human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied,” or stated another way, “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”7 Mill recognizes that some pursue sensual self-indulgence that is bad for their health, even though they are aware that health is the greater good.
Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism 37
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 37
PAIN, PLEASURE, AND HAPPINESS
An important question in Mill’s ethical perspective is that if pain and pleasure are used to assess the happiness that conduct will bring, how does one determine which is the greatest pleasure or pain? Mill believes that general consensus of those with experience is the best indicator. The experience of those (all or most) who give a decided preference determines hierarchy of pleasures. This consensus of experienced people is to be used to determine which pleasures will truly bring happiness. It also is not important to distinguish personal happiness from social happiness according to utilitarianism. The total amount of happiness is how pleasure is to be judged.
There are those who believe that happiness in life is unattainable, but Mill finds this assertion “is at least an exaggeration.” Clearly, a “continuity of highly pleasurable excitement . . . is impossible,” but happiness is a widely shared experience by many people.8 This experience is not often rapture, but many and various pleasures are experienced during life with fewer pains. Therefore, Mill believes happiness is attainable in the form of experiencing pleasure (versus pain).
Mill’s utilitarian approach sees current affairs standing in the way of greater happiness. Writing nearly 150 years ago, he sounds like a commentator today: “The present wretched education, and wretched social arrangements, are the only real hindrance to [happiness] being attainable by almost all.”9 Mill believes there are two causes to an unsatisfactory life: selfish- ness and lack of mental cultivation. Selfishness is caring for nobody but oneself, which leads to unhappiness because it lacks both public and private affections that contribute greatly to happiness. A person with a cultivated mind is interested in everything, such as nature, art, poetry, history, and the future. Lack of mental cultivation leads to indifference to all these things and ultimately to unhappiness according to Mill. Selfishness and an uncultivated mind, therefore, are primary factors that hinder the achievement of happiness.
MOTIVATION VERSUS CONSEQUENCES
Utilitarianism does not view motivation as relevant in determining the morality of an action. For example, martyrdom is good only if it leads to greater happiness; it is not good in itself according to utilitarianism. This is because self-sacrifice through martyrdom is not an intrinsic good. “Self-sacrifice for the good of others is powerful, but the sacrifice, in itself, is not a good.” Only the result is good, and Mill questions whether the sacrifice would be made “if the hero or martyr did not believe that it would earn for others immunity from similar sacrifices.”10 The motivation is not important in utilitarianism; it is the outcome that matters.
“Love your neighbor as yourself” is the Golden Rule, which Kant believed lacked moral content. Utilitarianism, however, requires a person to be a strictly impartial and disinterested spectator in assessing his or her own happiness versus that of others. Mill adds two conditions to the Golden Rule: (1) “The laws and social arrangements should place the happiness (the interest) of every individual . . . in harmony with the interest of the whole (as nearly as possible)” and (2) education and opinion should use their power over human character to establish in “every indi- vidual an indissoluble association between his own happiness and the good of the whole.”11
Therefore, Mill focuses on reconciling the happiness of the many with the happiness of the individual. The more a person sees his or her own happiness in ways that also enhance the happiness of others, the more likely it is that the greatest total happiness will be achieved.
Mill distinguishes utility from Kant’s ethical perspective when he says, “ninety-nine hundredths of all our actions are done from other motives (other than duty), and rightly so done.” He goes on to say, “the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action.”12 Therefore,
38 Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 38
Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism 39
motives are unimportant to utilitarianism, whereas they are central to formalism. For example, a person who saves someone from drowning is morally right under utilitarianism, regardless of whether his or her motivation is duty or a hoped-for reward.
Mill also addresses Aristotle’s issue of good acts that might be committed by a bad person. Mill agrees that an action isn’t bad because it is done by a bad person and that a proper action does not necessarily indicate a virtuous character. He also concurs with Aristotle in what determines a virtuous person: “I grant that . . . in the long run the best proof of a good character is good actions.”14
CRITICISMS OF UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism has been criticized for not being practical or timely in weighing the consequences of one’s actions prior to engaging in the conduct. Mill replies that if we wish to guide our conduct by Christianity, for example, there is no time to read through the Old and New Testaments before taking any action. Therefore, “the course of experience” helps guide actions in assessing probable outcomes.15 There does not need to be a complex or prolonged weighing of likely consequences as a person gains experience with such decisions; there simply needs to be reflection based on past experience and the experience of others.
Utilitarianism has also been criticized because it is believed that people will weigh the consequences of their actions in a self-serving way, always ending up doing things in their own self-interest. Mill agrees that the intellect and virtue of individuals vary and that difficult decisions are unavoidable. “There exists no moral system under which there do not arise unequivocal cases of conflicting obligation. These are the real difficulties, the knotty points both in the theory of ethics, and in the conscientious guidance of personal conduct.”16 Nevertheless, it is possible to weigh alternative consequences objectively, and this is the only way to ensure ethical conduct.
Sometimes utilitarianism has been summarized in a shorthanded way, declaring that the end justifies the means, suggesting that as long as the outcome results in happiness, it is acceptable to use any means to obtain it. This is not necessarily true under the principle of utility because the end would have to result in greater total happiness to justify the use of means that might cause pain. This reasoning again draws a clear distinction from virtue ethics, which would not accept this rule because a morally good end cannot be served by means that are not themselves morally good. Aristotle would say that “the ends justify the means” is a maxim of expediency, not of virtue. If immoral means are used, the ends achieved are also morally impermissible.17
Ethical conduct is enforced according to utilitarianism by individual hope of favor (reward or pleasure) or fear of displeasure (penalty or pain) from others, or from God. Ultimately, a “society between equals can only exist on the understanding that the interests of all are to be regarded equally. . . . In this way people grow up unable to conceive as possible to
ETHICS CHECKUP Martha Stewart an Example?
Homemaking entrepreneur Martha Stewart was con- victed for lying to investigators about a stock trade. She was sentenced to a short prison term. According to the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, the case will “send an important message that we will not, and frankly, cannot tolerate dishonesty and corruption.”13 Similar state- ments were made by other prosecutors of high-profile,
white-collar, fraud-related charges in recent years against such companies as Enron, Worldcom, and Adelphia Communications.
What ethical perspective is assumed by the prosecutor? Are there alternative ethical arguments to support such perspectives?
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 39
40 Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism
them a state of total disregard of other people’s interests.”18 For utilitarianism to work properly, therefore, individuals making decisions must weigh the consequences toward themselves and toward others equally and impartially.
SUMMARIZING ETHICAL THEORIES
Ending with the scenario that opened this chapter, utilitarianism provides one approach to assess- ing the ethics of police paying informants to solicit prostitutes, so they may be arrested. The good that results, of course, is the closing down of sex establishments and the incapacitation (at least temporarily) of prostitutes and purveyors in jail. If publicized, this police practice may also have a deterrent effect on future “johns” who might be tempted to solicit prostitutes. However, does this police strategy result in informants (who are often criminals) targeting other criminals (the prostitutes) with little impact on the general population? Will this police practice erode respect for police among citizens because they find it objectionable? Is the impact of this prac- tice weak and only temporary (based on the minor sentences given to prostitutes and their customers)? Utility requires an objective weighing of these potential positive and negative impacts to determine the morality of the practice, whereas virtue ethics and formalism focus more closely on the practice itself, regardless of its outcome.
Table 4.1 provides a summary of the three major ethical theories. It can be seen that there are differences in the goals of ethical behavior, the means of becoming ethical, and how ethical conduct is to be judged based on virtue ethics, formalism, and utilitarianism.
TABLE 4.1 Summarizing Three Ethical Theories
Virtue Ethics Formalism Utilitarianism
Goals of ethical behavior
The life that is most desirable, achieved by pursuing real goods through virtuous action, results in ethical happiness.
Do moral duty. Seek the greatest total happiness.
Means of becoming ethical
Follow the moral virtues: “By doing just acts . . . the just man is produced.”
Categorical imperative is the supreme principle of morality.
Maximize pleasure while minimizing pain.
Judging ethical conduct
Good conduct cannot be prescribed. Individual acts can be misleading unless they come from “a firm and unchangeable character.” Virtue is a mean that aims at the intermediate and avoids excess and defect.
Assess actions according to categorical and practical imperatives; consequences of acts do not bear on moral worthiness because other causes can result in the outcome, and personal inclinations have no moral value.
Make individual decisions by weighing the consequences toward yourself and toward others equally and impartially. Individual motivation is not relevant; only the outcome matters.
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 40
Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism 41
All the ethical theories are internally consistent in the way they determine the goals, means, and criteria for judging conduct (the “what”), but there are large differences in the purpose or goal of ethical conduct (the “why”). These distinctions sometimes make the evaluation of ethical conduct difficult—but not impossible. When conduct is evaluated based on these three theories, applying one perspective at a time, it becomes easy to see the ethical path clearly by making visible the logical connections among means, goals, and the ways that ethical conduct is judged.
ETHICS IN BOOKS
Ethics is everywhere, even in the books we read, which sometimes are written without ethics specifically in mind. Here is a summary of a book that looks at actions that affect others, fol- lowed by questions that ask you to reflect on the ethical connections.
The Good, The Bad & The Difference: How to Tell Right from Wrong in Everyday Situations
Randy Cohen (Broadway Books, 2003)
Randy Cohen writes a column for the New York Times Magazine, which is syndicated in many newspapers as “Everyday Ethics.” It is a column where readers send in troubling questions and request an “ethical” response. Interestingly, Cohen is a professional writer; he is not an ethicist, has no training in the area, and discloses this in his book. The editors who hired him believed that ethics should not be a specialized field but “should comprise a set of questions every ordinary citizen can—must—address.”
The book is a compilation of columns the author has written. Cohen defends his lack of knowledge of ethics saying, “Any discussion of ethics will come down to the values of the writer and how clearly and persuasively he can articulate those values and apply them to the particular scenario under discussion.” Ethicists would disagree with this claim, and the ethical perspectives offered in this book, Professional Ethics in Criminal Justice, attest that there are objective standards developed over centuries of careful thought on which to evaluate actions for their moral permissibility.
The most interesting part of The Good, The Bad & The Difference is at the end where the author lists the ten most difficult questions he has been sent by readers.
They are summarized here:
Should you tell a good friend’s wife about her husband’s infidelity? 2. Should you continue to buy cigarettes for a 79-year-old friend dying of lung disease? 3. Should you accept a charitable donation from a businessman with ties to organized crime? 4. Should you leave the same amount of money in your will to your children, when one is
very rich and the other is impoverished? 5. Should you lie and tell the judge you are opposed to capital punishment during jury
selection at a murder trial (to possibly save the defendant’s life)? 6. Should you say something to a mother who slaps her child for crying? 7. Should a physician maintain the confidentiality of a patient with a sexually transmitted
disease, who asks that his wife be tested but not told of his extramarital affair? 8. Should an instructor who mistakenly gives credit for a wrong test answer deduct that cred-
it when the student informs him of the error?
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 41
42 Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism
Should a wealthy person commission an artist to paint a reproduction of a more famous artist? 10. Should a person wear a motorcycle helmet as required by law, when he is only putting
himself at risk? These questions are all interesting: Some do not involve ethics, and a few others are
not difficult in ethical terms, once you identify the precise issues of moral permissibility and obtain an understanding of the elements of ethical thought. This book, Professional Ethics in Criminal Justice, will help you understand and apply these ethical principles to a wide range of difficult decisions.
QUESTIONS
Choose any one of the ten questions listed in this box. What do you see as the most impor- tant consideration in answering the question?
Ethics is indeed for everybody, so what do you see as the primary purpose of teaching ethics at colleges and universities?
ETHICS IN THE MOVIES
Movies seek to entertain and inform the audience about a story, incident, or person. Many good movies also hit upon important ethical themes in making significant decisions that affect the lives of others. Read the movie summary here (and watch the movie if you haven’t already), and answer the questions to make the ethical connections.
Quiz Show
Robert Redford, Director (1994)
Quiz Show recounts the true story of Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), the son of a famous academic and scholar, Mark Van Doren (Paul Scofield). It tells the story of a huge game show–fixing scandal that landed in the U.S. Congress.
Charles was a bright, handsome, and well-educated young man who had trouble earning the respect of his famous father. He was from a wealthy, well-connected family, and although he had a great deal of talent (he was a college professor), it was difficult for him to distinguish himself in his very accomplished family. Charles decided to try out for a television quiz show that, like Jeopardy, asked many difficult questions and required knowledge on a number of topics. Charles did well on the show and the ratings were very high, given his name, good looks, and success on the program.
The reigning champion of the show was Herb Stempel (John Turturro), who was not seen by the show’s producers (and sponsors and the network) as handsome or as appealing as Charles, even though Herb was quite a good player. The show’s producers wanted to keep Charles playing and have Herb lose, so they separately made offers to Charles to give him the questions in advance, and for Herb to “take a dive” by knowingly giving a wrong answer in the head-to- head match with Charles. Both Charles and Herb agreed to do so, despite misgivings.
Pressure was subsequently put on Charles from a congressional investigator looking into “fixed” game shows, but Charles eventually comes forward on his own and testifies before an
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 42
Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism 43
Discussion Question
What is the purpose of ethical conduct, and on what criteria would you evaluate your conduct?
Critical Thinking Exercises
All ethical decisions affect others (by definition) and, as Aristotle points out, ethical decision making is achieved consistently only through practice. Given the outline of virtue ethics provided by Aristotle (i.e., seeking the real goods via the moral virtues), evaluate the moral permissi- bility of the conduct in question in each scenario.
Important note on method: Critical thinking requires the ability to evaluate viewpoints, facts, and behaviors objec- tively to assess information or methods of argumentation to establish the true worth or merit of an act or course of conduct. Please evaluate these scenarios, first analyzing pros and cons of alternate views, before you come to a conclusion. Do not draw a conclusion first, and then try to find facts to support it—this frequently leads to narrow (and incorrect) thinking.
To properly evaluate the moral permissibility of a course of action using critical thinking skills
Begin with an open mind (no preconceptions!), 2. Isolate and evaluate the relevant facts on both sides, 3. Identify the precise moral question to be answered, and 4. Apply ethical principles to the moral question based on
an objective evaluation of the facts, only then drawing a conclusion.
A Flexible Expense Account
Clyde, a businessperson, catches a plane to Seattle to meet an important client. When he arrives in Seattle, it is
pouring rain. He doesn’t have his raincoat with him, and he can’t go to the meeting soaking wet, so he buys a raincoat in the hotel men’s shop and puts it on his expense account ($300).
A few weeks later, the company’s accounting office calls him and says “You can’t put a $300 raincoat on your expense account. We’re returning your paperwork.”
When he gets the form back from the accounting department, he crosses out “raincoat,” writes in “dinner with client,” and resubmits the form.
Clyde defended the change saying, “An expense account is a convenience for the company where I advance the com- pany money to perform my job. I spend it, and they pay me back . . . slowly. Many times, I am charged a month’s interest on the credit card before I get reimbursed. I bought the raincoat in order to represent the company effectively. I didn’t do it just for the hell of it! Also, there are minor expenses I never bother to claim. So I figure the company comes out ahead anyway. Everybody in the company does it this way, and our competitors are known for padding their expense accounts in order to gain an unfair advantage in attracting clients!”19
Evaluate the moral permissibility of Clyde’s conduct. • Later, Clyde’s expense account submission is noticed
by the company comptroller who attempts to have Clyde fired for submitting a false expense account record. Clyde argues the same points noted previously, but he adds that because he never received the
investigating committee of Congress that he knew the answers to the questions in advance on the quiz show. In the end, he was humiliated, especially given the prominence of his family, and he was also fired from his job as professor. Quiz Show was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1994.
QUESTIONS
If you were on a game show, and were offered the answers in advance, is it morally permis- sible to take them, knowing “it’s only a game show”?
What is the moral permissibility of the show’s producers, sponsors, and the network in trying to get the most appealing person to win (even if that person might not be the most talented)? Do you see any parallels to the television show American Idol?
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 43
44 Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism
reimbursement for the raincoat expense submission, he should not be punished. What do you think?
The Bad Samaritan
David Cash and Jeremy Strohmeyer were friends and 18 years old. They were hanging out at a casino on the California–Nevada border at 3:00 a.m. At one point, Jeremy entered a women’s restroom at the casino. He entered a stall and struggled with a 7-year-old girl. Jeremy was nearly 6 feet tall, and the girl weighed 50 pounds. David entered behind him and tapped Jeremy on the head, knocking his hat off in an effort to get him to stop. He could not get Jeremy to stop, so he left the restroom.
About 30 minutes later, Jeremy reappeared and told David he molested and killed the girl. The victim was found stuffed into the toilet bowl about 5:00 a.m. By this time, the two boys had already left the scene.
Jeremy was ultimately caught and charged with murder, and David is now a sophomore at the University of California at Berkeley. David was not charged with a crime because he simply failed to come to the aid of the victim. He said, “I have done nothing wrong.” Most states do not require a witness to a crime to report it or offer aid.
A protest at Berkeley was organized in the hope of getting David expelled from the university, but the chan- cellor said there would be no expulsion because, although outrageous, his conduct violated no law.20
Many students ostracized David and would not talk to him, angered by his being in the position to save a life yet choosing not to.
Evaluate the moral permissibility of David’s conduct. • Is the decision of the university chancellor morally
permissible?
The Ring of Gyges
Following is the story of the Ring of Gyges, which, when turned on your finger, makes you invisible. Glaucon makes an argument to Socrates about what would happen if some- one had such a ring.21
Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where Gyges was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, Gyges descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he, stooping and look- ing in, saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring. This he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the
shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king. Into their assembly Gyges came with the ring on his finger. As he was sitting among them, Gyges chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, whereupon instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outward and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result—when he turned the collet inward, he became invisible; when outward, he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen as one of the messen- gers to be sent to the court. As soon as he arrived, he seduced the queen, and, with her help, conspired against the king, slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with anyone at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever anyone thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and those who argue as I have been supposing will say that they are right. If you could imagine anyone obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
What would Aristotle, Kant, and Mill each do if they had such a ring?
What would you do with such a ring?
CSI: Effect on Offenders?
The proportion of rape cases that go unsolved is increasing, and some believe it is the result of television portrayals. Although the rate of cases solved by arrest rate for – violent crimes overall has remained about the same (45 percent), the rate of rapes solved by police has dropped by about 10 percent in the last decade (from 51 to 41 percent).
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 44
Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism 45
Some observers have speculated that this drop in the clearance rate might be due to more sophisticated offenders who are leaving less evidence at the scene. They argue that television shows like CSI: are informing offenders about the power of DNA evidence and that offenders are making victims shower or bathe and taking other measures to reduce evidence left at the scene. Other observers are not convinced that this change in the behavior of offenders is actually taking place, and note the general decline in the total number of rapes over the last decade, even though unsolved cases are growing.22
If it were to be proven that television shows like CSI: help criminals avoid apprehension, is it morally permis- sible to prohibit them?
Do you have alternative suggestions for addressing the possibility raised in this scenario?
Ethics and Pirates
The battle with pirates off the coast of Somalia came to a head with reports of two rescue efforts. One was a com- plete success. In the other, a hostage died. Were both—or either—ethically correct? The success came when a team of U.S. Navy Seals rescued Richard Phillips, the captain of a U.S.-flagged ship, from a lifeboat where he was being held by three Somali pirates. Navy sharpshooters killed his captors, after U.S. negotiators had refused the pirates’ offer to free Capt. Phillips in return for their own freedom.
The less successful venture came when French soldiers stormed a 41-foot yacht seized by pirates 5 days
earlier. The soldiers freed four French hostages and killed or captured the five pirates on board, but the yacht’s owner was killed during the attack. French government officials repeatedly had warned the two families aboard the yacht, which was headed for Zanzibar, not to sail through the Gulf of Aden, where the attack took place.
Behind these events lie several premises on which we probably can all agree:
Premise: Piracy is criminal, with no moral justification. • Premise: Maintaining sea-lanes free from piracy is
essential to international trade. • Conclusion: Nations should take vigorous steps to
eliminate piracy, by force if necessary—but under what circumstances?
Should nations put the needs of the whole community above the safety of their own citizens? Or should they refuse to put at risk the lives of noncombatants, that is, innocent people who have not signed up for military service? Should hostages be sacrificed in order to convince criminals that no effort will be spared to eradicate piracy? Or should the life of each citizen be more valued than preserving international trade?23
Evaluate the moral permissibility of the two incidents: of the French soldiers to attack, even though it resulted in a death, and for the Navy Seals to attack despite the fact that it turned out well (i.e., if Capt. Phillips had died, would the attack have been morally wrong?)
Key Concepts
Teleological 37 Utility 37 Consequentialism 37
Selfishness 38 Cultivated mind 38 End justifies the means 39
Enforce ethical conduct 39
Notes
Ian Demsky, “Police Defend Prostitution Tactic,” The Tennessean (February 2, 2005), p. 1.
Demsky, The Tennessean, p. 1. 3. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863) (Amherst,
NY: Prometheus Books, 1993), p. 16. 4. Jeremy Bentham, The Principles of Morals and
Legislation (1822) (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988); Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and
Punishments (1764) (Indianapolis, IN: Branden Publishing, 1992).
Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 17. 6. Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 18. 7. Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 20. 8. Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 23. 9. Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 24.
Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 27.
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 45
46 Chapter 4 • Utilitarianism
Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 28. 12. Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 29. 13. Jonathan D. Glater, “Prosecutors Send a Message: Are
Executives Listening?” New York Times (March 14, 2004), p. A11.
Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 31. 15. Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 35. 16. Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 37. 17. Mortimer Adler, Desires Right and Wrong: The
Ethics of Enough (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1991), p. 127.
Accounting,” Esquire (August 1997), p. 109; Anne
M04_ALBA5659_03_SE_C04.QXD 10/29/10 2:45 PM Page 46
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDERCLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernowAlso, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|